The Eisenberg Uncertainty Principle: Should Jesse have gotten and Oscar nod?

Very recently I had a spirited debate regarding Jesse Eisenberg's Academy Award nomination for Best Actor in The Social Network. My arguement was that though he was good in the movie it didn't warrant an Oscar nomination because quite honestly Eisenberg plays the same character in every movie he does, namely the geeky, awkward guy. Not surprisingly, this fit extremely well in his role as Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. While watching his films and observing Eisenberg in interviews, I've noticed that his personality falls in line with every character he's ever played.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm actually a fan of Eisenberg. Zombieland was an excellent film and Eisenberg was strong in the severely underappreciated 30 Days of Night. That being side the word "acting" is defined thusly:

"Acting is the work of an actor or actress, which is a person in theater, televison, film, or any other storytelling medium who tells the story by portraying a character and usually speaking or singing the written text or play."

If a person is simply being themselves on stage, screen, or television they are not portraying a character and are not, in the literal sense, acting. Ergo he or she should not receive a nomination for something he or she did not actually do. That's like nominating me for manager of the year simply because I sat in on a manager conference once.
My friend contended that the performance must be viewed "in a vacuum" with no consideration of the person's past work. I say hogwash. Impartiality and objectivism is virtually non-existent in media today. Why would I expect it to be different in Hollywood? The answer is I don't. Anyone who thinks there isn't any favortism in Hollywood never watched the 70th Annual Academy Awards show in 1999. (More on that in another post.) Furthermore, I actually believe that an actor's previous works should have some (note I said some not all) bearing on whether or not to nominate them for an Oscar.*

*Unless of course he or she has never been in a movie before.

Truly great acting should test and tax a thespian's skills. Otherwise you are not stepping out of your comfort zone. The goal is to create a character not be yourself and say lines. Two of the best in the business at that right now are Johnny Depp and Russell Crowe. In every role I've ever seen Johnny Depp in he's a completely different person whether it's Jack Sparrow or Willy Wonka. The same can be said for Crowe. In 1999, 2000, and 2001 the Austrialian actor was nominated for Best Actor playing a stuffed shirt tobacco whistle-blower, a Roman general and gladiator from the second century, and a schizophrenic Nobel Prize winning mathematician respectively. Now THAT is acting. Eisenberg's performance was the polar opposite of truly transcendent acting. From that perspective it kind of cheapens the nomination. Leonardo DiCaprio's 2010 turns in Shutter Island and Inception were ten times more Oscar worthy.
Compare that to say a George Clooney who I consider to be a moviestar not a true actor. (Read: he plays himself in every movie.) I am confounded that Clooney ever won for Syriana, let alone was nominated. Everyone had told me how Clooney had gone all method acting for the role and it was amazing. If you consider gaining thirty pounds method then I guess it's method. All I saw was a fat George Clooney.
Now this doesn't mean that I don't think Eisenberg can't one day step out of himself and become truly worthy of an Academy Award nomination. Frank Sinatra did it in The Manchurian Candidate and perpetual eye candy Brad Pitt did it in 12 Monkeys. However, until that day comes Eisenberg should change his Facebook status to Not Worthy.